Latin, Power of the county.] Referred at Common Law to all males over the age of fifteen on whom a sheriff could call for assistance in preventing any type of civil disorder.

The notion of a posse comitatus has its roots in ancient English Law, growing out of a citizen's traditional duty to raise a "hue and cry" whenever a serious crime occurred in a village, thus rousing the fellow villagers to assist the sheriff in pursuing the culprit. By the seventeenth century, trained militia bands were expected to perform the duty of assisting the sheriff in such tasks, but all males age fifteen and older still had the duty to serve on the posse comitatus.

In the United States, the posse comitatus was an important institution on the western frontier, where it became known as the posse. At various times vigilante committees, often acting without legal standing, organized posses to capture wrongdoers. Such posses sharply warned first-time cattle rustlers, for instance, and usually hanged or shot second-time offenders. In 1876 a four-hundred-man posse killed one member of the infamous Jesse James gang and captured two others.

In 1878 the use of a posse comitatus was limited by the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act, passed in response to the use of federal troops to enforce reconstruction policies in the southern states, prohibited the use of the U.S. Army to enforce laws unless the Constitution or an act of Congress explicitly authorized such use. This act was amended five times in the 1980s, largely to allow for the use of military resources to combat trafficking in illicit narcotics.

Though rarely used, the posse comitatus continues to be a modern legal institution. In June 1977, for example, the Aspen, Colorado, sheriff called out the posse comitatus—ordinary citizens with their own weapons—to hunt for escaped mass murderer Theodore ("Ted") Bundy. Many states have modern posse comitatus statutes; one typical example is the Kentucky statute enacted in 1962 that gives any sheriff the power to "command and take with him the power of the county or a part thereof, to aid him in the execution of the duties of his office" (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 70.060 [Baldwin 1996]).

So, as budgets crash, and there are less and less LEOs every day, what do we as a nation do? Also, keep in mind that the American system of legal protections has always been structured around the concept of police being reactive to crimes already committed.

Still not clear where to discuss the human disaster in Norway. The one common thread with these pretend tough guy cowards is that the like to shoot in places wherethe other people are likely to be unarmed. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/norway-a-postscript.php

Still not clear where to discuss the human disaster in Norway. The one common thread with these pretend tough guy cowards is that the like to shoot in places wherethe other people are likely to be unarmed. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/norway-a-postscript.php

You mean to tell me that people willing to commit mass murder aren't stopped by signs that say "no guns allowed"? Perhaps we just need signs that say "Murder prohibited in this area" to go with them.

Woof, Here is another very useful site for gun laws of the 50 states and conceal carry reg's that may vary from state to state. Remember that you have to comply with the other state's laws even if they have a reciprocal agreement to honor you state's conceal carry permit. Some states allow you to enter a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol if you have a permit and others will charge you with a felony for doing that. So you can see why it's important to know the other states law before you hit the road. Not only that, you should print out those laws and take them with you on your trip. There are a lot of laws out there, and a lot of cops out there that don't know what their laws are on conceal weapons, and they change fairly often. Tennessee for example just changed their law in 2010 to you can't drink and carry but now you can enter a bar with your weapon. If a cop missed that little update it might help if you could hand him the statute, it could save you a trip to jail and working things out through a lawyer.

"If a cop missed that little update it might help if you could hand him the statute, it could save you a trip to jail and working things out through a lawyer."An important point.

I'll second that. In a similar vein I nearly always carry a folding knife. I was at the local communitycollege when a staff person reported me. I was "arrested" by the ignorant campus police. However, I do carry a copy of the law pointing out that folding knives in the folded position are legal on college campuses among other issues. Aftera brief discussion I was let go and my knife was returned to me.

Without having a copy since they didn't know the law I would have wasted time and money.

Little but the most rudimentary facts are known about the shooting: On the night of February 17, Trayvon Martin, a black 17-year-old boy, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old white man. (Some news accounts have described Zimmerman as Latino.) Prior to the shooting, Zimmerman, who was active in his gated community’s neighborhood watch, phoned the Sanford police department and reported a suspicious person whom he described as a male black wearing a dark “hoodie,” jeans or sweat pants, and white tennis shoes. Exactly why Zimmerman found Martin worthy of suspicion remains unclear, but he told the police dispatcher there had been some break-ins in the neighborhood, and that “this guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”

Moments after the call to police ended, Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest, killing him. But why?

Zimmerman, who was licensed in Florida to carry a concealed weapon, told police he had fired in self-defense, but the details of his statement to investigators have not been made public. The dearth of details has not prevented an outcry calling for Zimmerman’s arrest for murder. So intense is the political pressure on prosecutors that Zimmerman will almost certainly be charged with a crime, but there is little chance he’ll be convicted of one, certainly not murder.

Advertisement

The death of Trayvon Martin is simply not one that will lend itself to a tidy resolution in the criminal justice system. This is not a case in which some homicidal predator killed someone in the course of a robbery. On the other hand, Zimmerman’s critics have painted him as an overzealous vigilante who stepped beyond the customary limits of the neighborhood watch member by pursuing a person who had done nothing more than behave suspiciously.

Indeed, Zimmerman seems an easy figure to caricature. At National Review Online, Robert VerBruggen calls him “a classic cop wannabe.” Zimmerman, VerBruggen writes, “lov[ed] the thought of himself as a police officer, and witnessing a spate of break-ins in his neighborhood, he decided to patrol the streets in his SUV — carrying a gun (as he was licensed to do) and calling the cops 46 times in the course of a year to report ‘suspicious’ activity.”

Most police officers will recognize the archetype that VerBruggen assumes Zimmerman to be: the guy who wants to be a cop but for some reason cannot, but who nonetheless acts as a sort of watchman for his neighborhood, calling the police for any perceived breach of good order. And calling the police 46 times in a single year would indeed seem excessive if not psychotic. But, as Andrew Cohen reports at the Atlantic, Zimmerman’s 46 calls to police came over the course of 11 years, not one, with the confusion owing to a typo on a report released by the Sanford police. And given the level of crime in the area, an average of four calls per year may not be an inordinate amount at all. (The website Crimemapping.com lists 282 crimes within a mile of the site of the shooting within the last six months, including three burglaries within the gated community itself.)

Much has been made of the claim the Zimmerman “pursued” Martin against the advice of the police dispatcher. On the tape of Zimmerman’s 911 call, the dispatcher asks if Zimmerman is following the suspect. Zimmerman replies that he is. “We don’t need you to do that,” says the dispatcher.

Note that the dispatcher’s words were something less than imperative. But even if the dispatcher had expressly directed Zimmerman not to follow the suspect, would Zimmerman have been legally bound to follow such a direction? No, he would not.

And there is reason to question whether Zimmerman was actually pursuing Martin. Prior to being cautioned about following the suspect, Zimmerman can be heard breathing heavily into the phone as though running. But after the dispatcher’s admonition, Zimmerman’s breathing returns to normal, and he calmly converses with the dispatcher about how the responding officers can contact him by phone and find him within the complex.

My own inference from listening to the 911 tapes is that Zimmerman stopped running after Martin during his call to police, but then followed Martin’s path in an attempt to see where Martin had gone. Note that at the beginning of the 911 call, Zimmerman is seated in his truck, apparently in the area of the complex’s clubhouse near the gated entrance. But the shooting occurred on a walkway running past the rear yards of the townhouses, an area where Zimmerman would not have been able to drive his truck. Why did Martin walk back there? Did he come upon Martin unexpectedly, and if so, which of them initiated the physical confrontation?

Zimmerman reportedly sustained a bloody nose and a gash to the back of his head, injuries that may bolster his claim of self-defense. But it may also have been the case that Martin, on being followed by a stranger whom he also regarded as suspicious, acted in self-defense when that stranger approached him with a gun. On one of the 911 calls to Sanford police, a voice can be heard screaming for help prior to the gunshot, but it has not been established if that voice is Zimmerman’s or Martin’s. A grand jury will attempt to resolve these questions next month, but even if it hands down an indictment on Zimmerman, I fail to see how prosecutors can win a conviction unless they can produce some damning evidence not yet revealed. Some have suggested Zimmerman used a racial slur during his call to police, indicating a possible racial animus that may have influenced his decision to shoot, though it’s far from clear what he actually said.

Trayvon Martin’s death was tragic, but it is a tragedy that will not find a neat resolution in the criminal courts. The only certainty is that the tragedy will be rendered into farce by the cast of characters who will use it to raise their own questionable profiles. And the first man up, as you might have expected, will be the most questionable of all: Al Sharpton descends on Sanford today.

“Jack Dunphy” is the pseudonym of an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department. The opinions expressed are his own and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD management.

When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.

...

What about media reenactments of the shooting incident?

Any media reenactments of the shooting incident are purely speculation. To date the Sanford Police Department has not released any rendition of the events of the evening to anyone other than the Office of the State Attorney. The renditions we have seen are not consistent with the evidence in this case.

[emphasis added]

The Sanford Police Department has conducted a complete and fair investigation of this incident. We have provided the results of our investigation to the Office of the State Attorney for their review and consideration for possible criminal prosecution. Although the Police Department is the target of the troubling questions, let me assure you we too feel the pain of this senseless tragedy that has dramatically affected our community. Therefore, as we move forward and strive to answer the questions that are a point of controversy in the community, we ask for your patience, understanding and assistance in getting the correct information to the community.

Who’s up for a little street justice? The New Black Panther Party, for starters. They’re circulating a “Wanted: Dead or Alive” poster for George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer who shot 17-year-old black youth Treyvon Martin last month. Public outrage erupted after the police in Sanford, Florida declined to arrest Zimmerman, who claims he fired in self-defense.

President Obama inserted himself into the case on Friday, saying “every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together, federal, state, and local, to figure out how this tragedy happened.” Obama also remarked that if he had a son, “he’d look like Trayvon,” which will not do much to calm passions surrounding the case, or make it any easier to put together an impartial jury for any trial that might occur.

The New Black Panthers aren’t waiting around for any boring old “investigations.” They printed up a flyer declaring Trayvon Martin was “MURDERED in Cold BLOOD” and passed them out during a press conference held by Mikhail Muhummud, who described himself as “the southern regional director for the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense,” according to The Blaze.

On the subject of whether printing up this flyer might exacerbate a situation that has already seen death threats against Zimmerman, Muhummud declared, “God dammit, he should be fearful for his life.”

The New Black Panthers might have to get in line for their crack at Zimmerman, because another militant group, the New Black Liberation Militia, announced it would be sending members to Orlando next week to “attempt a citizen’s arrest” on Zimmerman.

They won’t have any trouble finding him, because movie director Spike Lee used his Twitter account to beam Zimmerman’s home address to his 244,858 followers.

Also on Twitter, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said of Treyvon Martin, “Let us see what kind of justice will come for his bereaved family and our bereaved community”… followed immediately by, “Where there is no justice, there will be no peace. Soon and very soon, the law of retaliation may very well be applied.” Farrakhan has just under 37,000 Twitter followers.

Sanford police chief Bill Lee and his family have also been targeted by a death threat, issued by one John Carnduff Stewart of Melbourne Beach, Florida. Charges have been filed against Stewart, and he was placed on electronic monitoring. Lee stepped down as chief of police on Thursday, while Stewart’s emailed death threat was sent on Friday.

Zimmerman is screwed, he will most likely face a manslaughter charge and will be found guilty, and based on the scant evidence will probably deserve the punishment. The crux of the matter is whether through his actions he escalated the situation to one where deadly force became needed. I think we need to remove the heated racial language and look at this objectively. You see someone in your neighborhood, you don't recognize him, you follow him, all the kid knows is he is being followed, this is a recipe for a confrontation. Through your actions you created the confrontation, the consequences of the actions end in deadly force. Ultimately you will be the one to blame, the kid had the right to be where he was, he was up to no unlawful activity, and ultimately he is still a kid, being followed by an adult.

But what if the kid accosts or challenges the person following him? If he did he is in his right, why wouldn't you want to know why you are being followed, the kid has his right to stand his ground. Even if the kid throws the first punch he is guilty of battery at worst. Ultimately the adult created this situation and will be held responsible.

Here is the Florida statute in question:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

As someone who has taught self defense, including deadly force for years, and as a cop I think the cops in Florida messed up, and the state Attorney General insight to reopen the case.

Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then began hammering his head

4:35 p.m. EST, March 26, 2012|By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law enforcement authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw that initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.

In his version of events, he had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

Zimmerman told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.

Civil rights leaders and more than a million other people have demanded Zimmerman's arrest, calling Trayvon a victim of racial profiling and suggesting Zimmerman is a vigilante.

Trayvon was an unarmed black teenager who had committed no crime, they say, who was gunned down while walking back from a 7-Eleven with nothing more sinister than a package of Skittles and can of Arizona iced tea.

This is what the newspaper has learned about Zimmerman's account to investigators:

He said he was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon walking through his gated community.

Trayvon was visiting his father's fiancée, who lived there. He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession.

Police have been reluctant to provide details about their evidence.

But after the Sentinel story appeared on the newspaper's website Monday morning, City Manager Norton Bonaparte Jr. issued a news release, saying there would be an internal affairs investigation into the source of the leak and if identified, the person or people involved would be disciplined.

He did not challenge the accuracy of the information.

At a Monday news conference, Trayvon's mother, father and their lawyers called the report that their son was suspended from school because of a marijuana baggy irrelevant and needlessly hurtful.

Trayvon's father Tracy Martin, said "even in death, they are still disrespecting my son, and I feel that that's a sin."

His mother, Sybrina Fulton, said, "They killed my son and now they're trying to kill his reputation."

Supporters have held rallies in Sanford, Miami, New York and Tallahassee, calling the case a tragic miscarriage of injustice.

Civil Rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton headlined a rally in Sanford Thursday that drew an estimated 8,000 people. The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Sunday spoke at an Eatonville church, where he called Trayvon a martyr.

Zimmerman has gone into hiding. A fringe group, the New Black Panthers, have offered a $10,000 reward for his capture.

On Feb. 26, when Zimmerman first spotted Trayvon, he called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Trayvon as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.

Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.

There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.

Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.

Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.

Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.

Zimmerman began yelling for help.

Several witnesses heard those cries, and there's been a dispute about whether they came from Zimmerman or Trayvon.

Lawyers for Trayvon's family say it was Trayvon, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman.

One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.

Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest from very close range, according to authorities.

When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head.

Paramedics gave him first aid, but said he did not need to go to the hospital. He got medical care the next day.

SANFORD -- Miami Gardens teenager Trayvon Martin was suspended from school in October in an incident in which he was found in possession of women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that a schools security staffer described as a “burglary tool,” The Miami Herald has learned.

Trayvon, who claimed that an unnamed friend had given him the jewelry, was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald.

A lawyer for the dead teen’s family acknowledged Trayvon had been suspended for graffiti, but said the family knew nothing about the jewelry and the screwdriver, calling the information in the report an attempt to “demonize” the youth.

According to the report, on Oct. 21 staffers monitoring a security camera at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School spotted Trayvon and two other students writing “W.T.F.,” an acronym for “What the f---,” on a hallway locker, according to schools police. The security employee, who knew Trayvon, confronted the teen and looked through his bag for the graffiti marker.

Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described the screwdriver as a burglary tool.

Trayvon was asked if the jewelry, which was mostly women’s rings and earrings, belonged to his family or a girlfriend.

“Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend.

School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation.

“Martin was suspended, warned and dismissed for the graffiti,” according to the report prepared by Miami-Dade Schools Police.

That suspension was followed four months later by another one, in February, in which Trayvon was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it, the boy’s family’s attorney has confirmed. A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a “marijuana pipe.”

The suspension was the third for the teen. On Monday, the family also acknowledged Trayvon had earlier been suspended for tardiness and truancy.

The reports of the suspensions surfaced as a more complicated portrait of Trayvon began to emerge Monday. Trayvon was shot to death in Sanford on Feb. 26 during a scuffle with neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman. He was suspended from school at the time.

Reacting to the new schools police report, Ben Crump, an attorney for the parents, said they “never heard anything like this about a bag of jewelry….And anyway, it’s completely irrelevant to what happened Feb. 26. They never heard this, and don’t believe it’s true. If it were true, why wouldn’t they call the parents? Why wasn’t he arrested?”

“We think everybody is trying to demonize him.”

Trayvon, who was 17 when he died, had never been arrested, he said.

His mother, Sybrina Fulton, said her son never had any problems with gangs or the police. In fact, she said, when she transferred him out of Carol City High School to be closer to home, the school wanted him to stay at Carol City because they liked him and he was a good student, she said.

“They killed my son and now they are trying to kill his reputation,” she said.

Another lawyer for the family said she didn’t put much credence in the report about the jewelry and the screwdriver.

“This is someone in a school writing a report, rumor as far as I’m concerned,” said attorney Natalie Jackson.

At a press conference held Monday after a town forum in Eatonville, near Sanford, the parents, flanked by their attorneys along with the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, addressed the report about the empty marijuana baggie.

“If he and his friends were experimenting with marijuana, that is still completely irrelevant,” Crump said. “It is one of the things the family has said: ‘What does that have to do with him killing my son?’

Sharpton said he warned the family from the start that anything negative about Trayvon would be dragged out in an effort to make him out to be a “junkie and a thief.” He knew that would happen, he said, because it’s occurred in every similar case he has ever been involved in.

“The only thing that’s relevant is what Zimmerman knew,” Sharpton said. “Let’s not play this double standard of trying to damage who is dead and sanitize who is the cause of the death.”

The teen’s family and their supporters spoke after the Orlando Sentinel reported that Zimmerman told authorities that Trayvon beat Zimmerman’s head against the sidewalk.

Trayvon was killed while serving out the 10-day suspension for the marijuana baggie in Sanford, where his father’s girlfriend lives. Zimmerman, a community watch volunteer who thought Trayvon looked drugged and suspicious called police and later wound up in a fight with him. The two scuffled and Zimmerman shot Trayvon, killing him. He has not been charged.

I knew there was something suspicious about this Zimmerman character. Heck, if I didn’t know any better I’d say he could pass for Obama’s brother. One thing’s for sure, this rarely-seen photo just goes to show how old the usual photo we see of Zimmerman is.

The individual at the center of the controversial Trayvon Martin shooting is a registered Democrat.

George Michael Zimmerman, born Oct. 5, 1983, registered as a Democrat in Seminole County, Fla., in August 2002, according to state voter registration documents.

It is unclear whether he voted for President Barack Obama in 2008.

Some in the media have sought to blame Republican politicians and conservative activists for Martin’s death.

“[Republican politicians] reinforce and validate old stereotypes that associate the poor and welfare as criminal behavior with African-Americans and people of color, calling us lazy, undeserving recipients of public assistance. In the case of Trayvon, those festering stereotypes had lethal consequences,” said MSNBC political analyst and Democratic fundraiser Karen Finney.

According to the document, Zimmerman’s race is officially listed as Hispanic. The son of a white father and Peruvian mother, he has been described as a “white Hispanic” in most media reports.

So we assume the media will from here on accurately call Zimmerman a Hispanic Democrat, right?

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.

In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

Zimmerman told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.

Civil-rights leaders and more than a million other people have demanded Zimmerman's arrest, calling Trayvon a victim of racial profiling and suggesting Zimmerman is a vigilante.

Trayvon was an unarmed black teenager who had committed no crime, they say, who was gunned down while walking back from a 7-Eleven with nothing more sinister than a package of Skittles and can of Arizona iced tea.

Zimmerman's account

This is what the Sentinel has learned about Zimmerman's account to investigators:

He said he was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon walking through his gated community.

Ads by GoogleIs He Cheating On You?1). Enter His Email Address 2). See Hidden Pics & Social Profiles Now! Spokeo.com/Cheating-Spouse-SearchTrayvon was visiting his father's fiancée, who lived there. He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession.

Police have been reluctant to provide details about their evidence.

But after the Sentinel story appeared online Monday morning, City Manager Norton Bonaparte Jr. issued a news release, saying there would be an internal-affairs investigation into the source of the leak and, if identified, the person or people involved would be disciplined.

He did not challenge the accuracy of the information.

At a Monday news conference, Trayvon's mother, father and their lawyers called the report that their son was suspended from school because of a marijuana baggie irrelevant and needlessly hurtful.

Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, said "even in death, they are still disrespecting my son, and I feel that that's a sin."

Supporters have held rallies in Sanford, Miami, New York and Tallahassee, calling the case a tragic miscarriage of justice.

Civil-rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton headlined a rally in Sanford on Thursday that drew an estimated 8,000 people. The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Sunday spoke at an Eatonville church, where he called Trayvon a martyr.

Zimmerman has gone into hiding. A fringe group, the New Black Panther Party, has offered a $10,000 reward for his "capture."

One-minute gap

On Feb. 26, when Zimmerman first spotted Trayvon, he called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Trayvon as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.

Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.

There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.

Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.

Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.

Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.

Zimmerman began yelling for help.

Several witnesses heard those cries, and there has been a dispute about whether they came from Zimmerman or Trayvon.

Lawyers for Trayvon's family say it was Trayvon, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman.

One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.

Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest at very close range, according to authorities.

When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head.

Paramedics gave him first aid but he said he did not need to go to the hospital. He got medical care the next day.

A New Black Panther Party leader who announced a $10,000 reward for thecapture of the neighborhood watchman who shot and killed Florida teenTrayvon Martin was arrested Monday outside Atlanta for possession of afirearm by a convicted felon, DeKalb County Sheriff's office said.

Hashim Nzinga, 49, was in possession of an FN Herstal 5.7x28 handgun that heallegedly sold to the Stone Mountain Pawn Shop on March 5 in DeKalb County,Sgt. Adrion Bell, the public information officer, told FoxNews.com.

Last month, Nzinga was convicted for felony deposit account fraud in nearbyGwinnett County, Bell said. It is illegal for a convicted felon to carry afirearm in the state and police were alerted to Nzinga's alleged possessionafter the store's transaction, Bell said.

He was arrested without incident at the probation office he was reportingto, Bell said.

The FN Herstal 5.7x28 is considered a high-end gun that can fetch $800 to$900 at a pawn shop. It is unclear how much Nzinga made from the allegedsale.

Nzinga serves as the New Black Panther Party's chief of staff. He recentlymade news after going on CNN and offering a $10,000 reward for the captureof George Zimmerman, whose role in the shooting death of 17-year-old TrayvonMartin is being investigated by Florida authorities.

Martin's killing has attracted the country's attention. Black leaders saythe incident was racially motivated and call for Zimmerman to be arrested.Others, however, say the killer is protected under Florida's "stand yourground" law and was acting in self-defense.

MARCH 27--With Twitter and Facebook continuing to explode with posts purporting to contain the address of George Zimmerman, property records and interviews reveal that the home is actually the longtime residence of a married Florida couple, both in their 70s, who have no connection to the man who killed Trayvon Martin and are now living in fear due to erroneous reports about their connection to the shooter.

The mass dissemination of the address on Edgewater Circle in Sanford--the Florida city where Martin was shot to death last month--took flight last Friday when director Spike Lee retweeted a tweet containing Zimmerman’s purported address to his 240,000 followers.

The original tweet was sent to Lee (and numerous other celebrities like Will Smith, 50 Cent, and LeBron James) last Friday afternoon by Marcus Davonne Higgins, a 33-year-old Los Angeles man who uses the online handle “maccapone.” Higgins included the direction, “EVERYBODY REPOST THIS.”

Higgins, pictured at right, first began disseminating the Sanford address to his Twitter followers last Wednesday, including the claim that Zimmerman “Like the fat punk he is, he still lives at home with mommie & daddy.” In a simultaneous post to his Facebook wall, Higgins told his 4000 friends, “FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT & TOUCH HIM.” He also claimed in another post that, “REAL TALK MY PEOPLE OUT THERE IN FLORIDA JUST TOLD ME GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS NOT AT HIS HOUSE THEY OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.”

Higgins’s dissemination of Zimmerman’s purported Edgewater Circle address was not, however, limited to cyberspace. At a protest rally last Thursday in an L.A. park near his Crenshaw home, Higgins held a sign containing Zimmerman’s name, address, and phone number.

Except, of course, none were accurate.

The man who shot Martin is George Michael Zimmerman. Higgins has repeatedly identified him as “George W. Zimmerman.”

The residence on Edgewater Circle is actually the home of David McClain, 72, and his wife Elaine, 70. The McClains, both of whom work for the Seminole County school system, have lived in the 1310-square-foot lakefront home for about a decade, records show.

In an interview tonight, Elaine McClain told TSG that she and her husband were “afraid” due to the online linking of her address to Zimmerman. “We're keeping everything locked,” she said. McClain added that the couple was particularly unnerved by a letter mailed to them at their home. On the envelope, she said, were printed the words “Taste The Rainbow,” the slogan for Skittles. Martin was carrying a pack of Skittles and a can of ice tea when he was gunned down by Zimmerman.

McClain said her husband returned the envelope unopened to the post office.

The McClains only became aware that their address was being widely circulated online two days ago, when a TV reporter arrived at their home asking for “George.” Bewildered by their sudden--and erroneous--connection to Martin’s killer, the elderly couple’s distress can only be heightened by posts made by Twitter and Facebook users who threaten to visit their residence in search of Zimmerman. Or other posts that goad followers to vigilante action.

Higgins has not responded to numerous TSG messages, so it is unknown where he came up with the information tying Zimmerman to the McClains's home. A check of Zimmerman’s residential history shows no connection to the Edgewater Circle property, which is about four miles from his actual home in Sanford.

So how did Higgins screw things up?

Besides overlooking the different middle initial, perhaps that answer is connected to an old voter record for a “William George Zimmerman” at the Edgewater Circle property. That registration, which dates back to 1995, is for a 41-year-old man. The Zimmerman who shot Martin is 28.

Elaine McClain identified William George Zimmerman as her son, noting that he has not lived at the Edgewater Circle residence for seven years. “He is six-foot-five and thin as a rail,” McClain said of her son, who now lives elsewhere in Seminole County. McClain said she was previously married to a man named Zimmerman, but that he was not related in any fashion to the Zimmerman who shot Martin.

When told that Twitter posts containing her address continued to pour in this evening, an exasperated Elaine McClain remarked, “Maybe we should get a lawyer and send a cease and desist letter to Spike Lee.”

Originally Posted by Citizen, RI Mr. Gooding-Williams - You have desperately tried to demonstrate that by virtue of the fact that Mr. Zimmerman is not black and Mr. Martin was, that Zimmerman was taken at his word. That claim alone would be bad enough, given that Chief Lee's assertion had to do with the *evidence* in view at the time of the investigation immediately after the incident.

But taking the Chief's decision and comparing it to the Fugitive Slave Law is appalling. The Chief DID NOT take Zimmerman *at his word*, he took Zimmerman's statement and compared it to the evidence available at the time and, finding no inconsistencies, elected to not arrest Zimmerman. This, by the way, can be reversed at any time during the investigation should further evidence show an inconsistency that would indicate Zimmerman's account is incorrect.

One reason why race will continue to be an issue in our country is because people continue to inflate emotions and misappropriate incidents in order to maintain race as an issue where it is not one.

And you, sir, have done more damage by creating an equivalency, out of thin air, between this incident and a horrific historical injustice allowed by law. By twisting a fact (that Zimmerman was not arrested) with fantasy (solely on the basis of his word because he was not black) and drawing an irresponsible analogy with an historical racist law, you have taken us another step back in race relations. Congratulations on accomplishing your objective.

The funeral director who prepared Trayvon Martin’s body for burial told HLN’s Nancy Grace Wednesday that he did not see any cuts or bruises on the teen’s hands that would have been indicative of a struggle with George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed the Florida teen.

Richard Kurtz of Roy Mizell and Kurtz Funeral Home in Fort Lauderdale said there appeared to be a gunshot wound in Martin’s upper chest area, but he received the body after the autopsy was completed so it was difficult to tell whether he had other injuries. He also could not determine the bullet’s entry or exit point.

“As for his hands and knuckles, I didn’t see any evidence he had been fighting anybody,” Kurtz said.

Citing police sources, the Orlando Sentinel reported that Zimmerman told investigators Martin punched him and slammed his head into the ground repeatedly before he fired the shot that killed the unarmed 17-year-old. He claimed he shot Martin in self-defense, and he has not been charged in the case at this point.

While Kurtz is not a forensics expert, the funeral director said he has handled the bodies of many homicide victims in his career. This case in particular affected him as he learned more about what happened to Martin and how the case was handled.

“I think the police investigation was the most unprofessional one I've ever seen in my lifetime,” Kurtz said.

The New Black Panthers’ Bounty on George ZimmermanPosted By John Perazzo On March 29, 2012 @ 12:54 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 44 Comments

Distilled to its essence, the original, widely accepted narrative of Trayvon Martin’s death was that of a clearly delineated battle between good and evil which went something like this: On the night of February 26th in Sanford, Florida, a racist vigilante named George Zimmerman relentlessly and unjustifiably stalked an African American “child,” as Al Sharpton tenderly described him, who had been minding his own business, eating “a bag of Skittles.” Zimmerman then gunned the boy down in “cold blood,” according toJesse Jackson—simply because, like so many Americans, he instinctively viewed all black males as potential criminals. Notably, a host of major media reports described the Hispanic gunman specifically as a “white Hispanic”—a term rarely if ever used prior to the Martin killing—to emphasize the familiar “oppressor-versus-victim” racial storyline that the left has grown so proficient at reciting.Recently the New Black Panther Party—never known for mincing words—has weighed in on the case as well, ominously declaring that “White America,” having “failed black people” for “400 years,” will no longer be permitted to “kill black children and get away with it.” To drive the point home, the Panthers initially offered a $10,000 bounty for the “capture” of George Zimmerman. Lest there be any ambiguity about what the Panthers meant by “capture,” the group not only demanded “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” but also circulated a flyer that read: “MURDERED in Cold BLOOD—Child killer of Trayvon Martin—WANTED DEAD or ALIVE.” Soon thereafter, the Panthers upped the ante to $1 million, a sum which they expected to collect in donations “from the black community [including] athletes and entertainers.”The Panthers, it is worth noting, have been unpersuaded by some inconvenient facts that emerged following the announcement of their bounty, including eyewitnessevidence that Trayvon Martin actually attacked Zimmerman (rather than vice versa) and was beating the latter quite badly just prior to the shooting. Of course, not all the facts are known yet, but as far as the New Black Panthers are concerned, the collection and evaluation of evidence are merely tiresome formalities that would serve only to delay and deny “justice” for the racist killer. The Panthers’ southern regional leader, Mikhail Muhammad, puts it succinctly: “He [Zimmerman] should be fearful for his life. You can’t keep killing black children.” Righteous crusades against evil don’t require due process; they only require victory.Anyone familiar with the New Black Panthers knows that they have long been vexed by the racism which they claim pervades “White America.” Indeed, who could forget one of the Panthers’ most famous leaders, the late Khalid Abdul Muhammad, whose angst about white racism led him to express his deepest “love” for one Colin Ferguson, a black gunman who had shot some twenty white and Asian commuters (killing six of them) in a racially motivated rampage aboard a New York commuter train in 1993. Determined to stamp out white racism by any means necessary, Muhammad announced: “I honestly wanna kill the enemy…. I would be embarrassed if we couldn’t point to one Colin Ferguson that decided one day to … just kill every goddamn cracker that he saw.”When Muhammad died of a brain aneurysm in 2001, he was succeeded as Panther chairman and crusader-in-chief-against-racism by his longtime protégé, Malik Zulu Shabazz. Like his mentor, Shabazz reads American history as an unpunctuated narrative of white-perpetrated oppression. He asserts, for instance, that George Washington was little more than a slave owner who “raped black women,” while “old wooden-teeth-wearin’, wig-wearin’ Thomas Jefferson, [was] nothin’ but a slave-master, a slave-owner, an Indian-killer.”Shabazz was once a featured speaker at an Al Sharpton-organized “Redeem the Dream” rally at the Lincoln Memorial, where the young Panther—troubled as he was by the intransigent scourge of American bigotry—unambiguously called for a race war. Expressing “solidarity with Reverend Sharpton,” Shabazz spoke of a proverbial “black jury” finding “white America” guilty of “injustice and racism”; he called on young African Americans, including “gang members,” to unite against their “common enemy”; and he articulated his “black dream that when we see caskets rolling in the black community … we will see caskets and funerals in the community of our enemy as well.”By Shabazz’s reckoning, the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case cries out for precisely such retributive “justice.” Long before this case, in fact, Shabazz made it clear that if any white person “lays their hand on any black man or woman in this county,” the black community should swiftly and mercilessly “crush that devil.”So as to avoid portraying Shabazz as nothing more than a two-dimensional moron, a third dimension should be pointed out at this time: By no means does the Panther leader uniformly detest all non-blacks. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, for instance, he lavished praise upon a newly prominent Middle Eastern Arab named Osama bin Laden, characterizing him as a Muslim “brother” and “a bold man” who was “not bowing down” to the West, but rather was “standing up” for his beliefs and “bringing reform to this world.” “The real terrorists,” Shabazz explained, “have always been the United Snakes of America.”Under Shabazz’s leadership, the New Black Panthers adhere to a “Ten-Point Platform” that demands “the overdue debt of reparations” to be paid by “this wicked racist government [which] has robbed us”; that exhorts “all Black People” to “unite and form an African United Front and arm ourselves for self-defense”; and that demands the release of all nonwhite inmates “from the many jails and prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial.” In the Panthers’ calculus, the collective innocence of blacks is as axiomatic as the collective guilt of whites—including, of course, “white Hispanics” like George Zimmerman.From that premise, it is but a short logical leap to the conclusion that the evidentiary specifics of any particular case involving race are of no real consequence. And while racial hucksters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton may not endorse the Panthers’ call for violence, they have, for decades, shared the Panthers’ vision of collectivized white guilt and black innocence. Moreover, they remain prepared to exploit any incident which they believe might help them keep that vision alive. Thus do they focus so fervently, so predictably, on incidents bearing even the remotest resemblance to white-on-black violence, which has been a statistical rarity for decades. And thus do they now cleave like leeches (see photos here and here) to Trayvon Martin’s parents, casting them as the latest new “faces” of their anachronistic, morally bankrupt movement.When Trayvon Martin was killed, President Obama counseled all Americans “to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen.” It is significant that he has not seen fit to encourage a similar analysis of the modern “civil rights” crowd’s inane and hackneyed ramblings.Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Bag of car radios ruled a deadly threat in Stand Your Ground decisionBy DAVID OVALLE The Miami Herald A man charged with murder had no choice but to defend himself with lethal force against a burglar he had chased down, a judge has ruled, citing the Stand Your Ground law.

Greyston Garcia, whose murder charges were thrown out by a Miami-Dade judge last week based on Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law. Photo By DAVID OVALLEdovalle@MiamiHerald.comA bag of stolen car radios — swung during a confrontation — amounted to a lethal threat to a Little Havana man who chased down a thief and stabbed him to death, a Miami-Dade judge said in her written ruling Tuesday in dismissing the murder charge against the man.Circuit Judge Beth Bloom issued her written ruling six days after deciding that based on Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, Greyston Garcia was immune from prosecution in the killing of Pedro Roteta, who swung the four- to six-pound bag at Garcia just before the stabbing.Last week’s ruling drew widespread attention at a time when critics are assailing Florida’s self-defense law in the wake of the fatal shooting of a Miami Gardens youth, Trayvon Martin, 17, by a self-appointed neighborhood watchman. Citing the law, Sanford police did not arrest the shooter, George Zimmerman, 28. Trayvon’s supporters have said Zimmerman targeted the unarmed teen because he was black.In Garcia’s case, police painted the defendant as a vigilante who chased Roteta for more than a block before stabbing him during a confrontation Jan. 25. But Bloom, in her order, said that under the law, Garcia “was well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property . . . the defendant had no duty to retreat and could lawfully pursue a fleeing felon who has stolen his property.”Bloom acknowledged in her order that Garcia did not call police or 911, but went home and fell asleep. He later sold two of the car radios and hid the knife. Those actions, however, did not sway the judge in ruling in favor of his self-defense claim.Garcia’s defense attorney, assistant public defender Eduardo Pereira, hailed the decision, saying: “Although controversial, the result in this case is due to the hard work of our office, which remains dedicated to protecting the Constitution by defending each client’s rights pursuant to the laws that apply to and protects us all.”Florida’s controversial 2005 Stand Your Ground law eliminated a citizen’s duty to retreat before using deadly force against an attacker. Authorities have derided the law because it puts the onus on judges, not juries, to decide whether someone is immune from prosecution.Miami-Dade Chief Assistant State Attorney Kathleen Hoague, who trains her office’s lawyers in self-defense cases, said her office would appeal the decision because “we feel the judge abused her discretion.”“The law does not allow for you to use deadly force to retrieve your property. She, in effect, is saying that it’s appropriate to chase someone down with a knife to get property back,” said Hoague, who stressed that a jury should weigh the merits of the case.The case unfolded the morning of Jan. 25, when Garcia discovered Roteta and another man rummaging through his truck and stealing its radio. Garcia grabbed a knife and chased Roteta, who took off running.After more than a block, Garcia caught up with Roteta. Garcia’s defense attorney said Roteta swung a bag filled with three stolen car radios at Garcia’s head.At a hearing earlier this month, a “medical examiner conceded that a 4-6 pound bag of metal being swung at one’s head would lead to serious bodily injury or death,” Bloom wrote.As Garcia blocked the bag with his arm, he countered with a single, fatal knife thrust to the chest.His defense attorney said that Roteta’s cohort told police that Roteta also had an open pocket knife in his hand during the chase. However, police found a folded-up knife in the dead man’s pocket.The confrontation was captured on video surveillance, but the judge said the images were too grainy to clearly tell what happened.Garcia, speaking to Miami homicide detectives, initially denied involvement. But after he was shown the surveillance video, Garcia admitted he chased down Roteta to get his radio back.At first, Garcia claimed Roteta had a screwdriver in his hand. Then, he admitted he did not see a weapon but feared for his life when the bag of radios was swung at him, according to Bloom’s order.

Zimmerman said he lost sight of Martin and began walking back to his SUV; Martin approached him, according to the Sentinel account.

Martin asked Zimmerman if he had a problem; Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police.

Martin said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, Zimmerman said, according to the Sentinel.

Zimmerman said Martin pinned him to the ground and began slamming his head into the sidewalk. The police report described Zimmerman's back as wet and covered with grass, as though he had been lying on the ground.

Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of his head, the police report said.

According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010.

Yawn.

Did the overall homicide rate increase? Without looking, I'll bet 35 homicides a month in greater Miami is typical.

According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010.

Yawn.

Did the overall homicide rate increase? Without looking, I'll bet 35 homicides a month in greater Miami is typical.

There were 4,105 crimes reported for every 100,000 residents in 2010, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. That's a drop of 7 percent from the year before and the lowest crime rate on record since 1971.

"The numbers are certainly encouraging," St. Petersburg police Chief Chuck Harmon said. "But we still have work to do."

Though crime was down, it was as devastating as ever. Last year, two Tampa police officers were shot and killed in the line of duty. Three St. Petersburg officers have been shot and killed on the job this year.

In fact, while murder dropped statewide and nationally in 2010, it rose in three Tampa Bay counties: Hernando (from four to nine deaths), Hillsborough (56 to 65 deaths) and Pinellas (27 to 35 deaths). Only Pasco County saw a decrease (12 to 10 deaths).

According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010.

Yawn.

Did the overall homicide rate increase? Without looking, I'll bet 35 homicides a month in greater Miami is typical.

There were 4,105 crimes reported for every 100,000 residents in 2010, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. That's a drop of 7 percent from the year before and the lowest crime rate on record since 1971.

"The numbers are certainly encouraging," St. Petersburg police Chief Chuck Harmon said. "But we still have work to do."

Though crime was down, it was as devastating as ever. Last year, two Tampa police officers were shot and killed in the line of duty. Three St. Petersburg officers have been shot and killed on the job this year.

In fact, while murder dropped statewide and nationally in 2010, it rose in three Tampa Bay counties: Hernando (from four to nine deaths), Hillsborough (56 to 65 deaths) and Pinellas (27 to 35 deaths). Only Pasco County saw a decrease (12 to 10 deaths).

Murder is traditionally known as the toughest crime to prevent.

Ok, it looks like Dade and Broward counties together averaged 23.9 homicides a month in 2010.

At a time when the overall U.S. homicide rate is declining, more civilians are killing each other and claiming self-defense—a trend that is most pronounced in states with new "stand your ground" laws.

These laws, which grant people more leeway to attack and even kill someone who is threatening them, are attracting close scrutiny following February's controversial killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida by a neighborhood watchman. Florida has one of the broadest self-defense laws of the 25 states with some version of a "stand your ground" principle.

So-called justifiable homicides nearly doubled from 2000 to 2010, the most recent data available, when 326 were reported, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of crime statistics from all 50 states. Over that same 11-year period, total killings averaged roughly 16,000 a year, according to the state figures, which the Journal obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and from Florida.

Homicides, By the Numbers

As 'Stand Your Ground' laws proliferate nationwide, there has been an increase in the number of cases in which killers are determined to have acted in self defense.

The data on justifiable homicides and their relationship to "stand your ground" laws hasn't been rigorously studied, according to criminal scientists, and it leaves some questions unanswered. For instance, does a rise in justifiable homicides reflect killings that otherwise wouldn't have happened? Or does it reflect the fact that more killings might naturally fall into the "justifiable" category, if a new law broadens that category?

The statistics don't capture why a killer felt threatened, or whether the victim was armed. And by definition, the dead man—and justifiable-homicide victims are almost exclusively male, unlike nonjustifiable homicides—isn't around to testify.Still, the numbers provide a rich snapshot of justifiable-homicide characteristics over the 11-year period:

• In about 60% of justifiable-homicide cases in which the relationship between victim and killer was known, the pair were strangers. This differs sharply from nonjustifiable cases, where more than three-fourths of victims knew their killers.

• Firearms were used in more than 80% of justifiable cases. (In seven cases, the victims were asphyxiated or strangled.) In nonjustifiable cases, guns were used about 65% of the time.

• The average age of victims in justifiable cases was 30; in nonjustifiable cases, the average was 32. By either yardstick, the February killing of 17-year-old Mr. Martin was an outlier.

The death of Mr. Martin, a black teen, is driving a widespread debate about the role of race. The nationwide data show that in three-quarters or more of all killings, "justifiable" or otherwise, the killer and victim were of the same race. Proportionally, blacks are more often the victims of homicide.

A split appeared in the data when the race of killer and victim differed. Among all homicides, when races differed, the victim was more often white. By contrast, in justifiable-homicide cases, when the races differed, the opposite was true: The victim was more often black.

James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University, said that difference "is certainly, on the face of it, something that needs to be explored." He noted it is difficult to draw conclusions without deeper study. "Could it be an element of racism? You can't necessarily assume that," he said.

Critics of the stand-your-ground laws say they breed a shoot-first mentality that not only can lead to more killings, but can make it tough to investigate killings that might otherwise be worth a closer look.

"I choose to believe prosecution for murder has a deterrent effect. It should be a huge deal to take a life," said David LaBahn of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. He said laws such as Florida's give civilians stronger protections than police officers who kill in the line of duty.

Supporters of stand-your-ground laws say they empower people to confront criminals in life-threatening situations, rather than flee. "I don't want to find out whether I can outrun a bullet," said James Corley, a Columbia, S.C., lawyer who shot and killed an armed intruder a few years ago.

In that 2009 incident, an intruder had broken into a club for recovering alcoholics and demanded everyone's wallets at gunpoint. Mr. Corley shot him with a concealed weapon. The local prosecutor didn't pursue charges, concluding that Mr. Corley acted in self-defense.

For decades, many states embraced the "Castle Doctrine," the principle that a person's home is their castle and they are generally within their rights to defend themselves, even with deadly force, against intruders.

Outside the home, however, most states required people to try to retreat, rather than take on an aggressor.

A wave of "stand your ground" laws, including Florida's in 2005, expanded the doctrine to include places outside the home.The National Rifle Association is a prominent backer of the new laws. An NRA official didn't respond to requests for comment.

Oklahoma State Senator Harry Coates, one of the sponsors for the law that passed in his state in 2006, said: "At the time, we were dealing with a tremendous number of carjackings."

Under the Castle Doctrine, he said, "It was a little unclear whether you could protect yourself. So we put it in the statutes that yes, you can shoot to kill if your life is in peril, period." Sen. Coates added, "It's not to allow you to blow people away unless your life is being threatened."

The Journal obtained most of the state-by-state data from the FBI, which collects it from the states, and also obtained Florida data from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Florida doesn't use the FBI's guidelines when reporting additional information about homicides.

The FBI data don't capture all homicides. The states' reporting is voluntary, and the country's thousands of police agencies aren't consistent in how they report. Some states, including New York, reported no justifiable homicides at all for some years.

In absolute terms, the number of homicides of all kinds reported in the data increased slightly between 2000 and 2010. But when adjusted for population growth, the overall homicide rate declined slightly in that data.

By contrast, over that period, the number of killings categorized as justifiable rose by 85% to 326 cases in 2010 from 176 in 2000, the figures show.

Five of the states that enacted "stand your ground" laws during the past decade—Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Montana and West Virginia—reported no significant change in justifiable homicides. In Michigan, which passed its law in 2006, they fell.Overall, the figures show the sharpest increase in justifiable homicides occurred after 2005, when Florida and 16 other states passed the laws.

While the overall homicide rates in those states stayed relatively flat, the average number of justifiable cases per year increased by more than 50% in the decade's latter half, the data show.

In Texas and Georgia, such cases nearly doubled and in Florida, they nearly tripled. Meanwhile, in states that saw no change in their self-defense laws, justifiable homicides reported to the FBI stayed nearly flat after a slight uptick in the middle decade.

Florida's particularly strong law not only eliminates the duty to retreat, but also presumes that a person who used deadly force in his home or vehicle had a reasonable fear of harm, and it immunizes the killer from civil lawsuits. At least six other states have laws mirroring Florida's.

Justifiable homicides in Florida rose from an average of 12 a year before the law was passed in 2005 to an average 33 a year afterward, according to statistics from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

There are a number of ways a homicide can be deemed justifiable. Prosecutors can decide not to bring charges, or a person can be cleared of wrongdoing by a jury. A judge can also find that someone acted in self-defense.

That's what happened in an unusual case in Miami this past week. Citing the Florida law, a judge dismissed a murder charge against Greyston Garcia, who had chased and stabbed to death a suspected burglar who had stolen his car radio. The judge ruled that a bag of radios swung by the suspect, Pedro Roteta, at Mr. Garcia amounted to a lethal threat.

Mr. Garcia "was well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property," the judge said.Prosecutors plan to appeal, according to a spokesman for Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle. Mr. Garcia's lawyer, Eduardo Pereira, said: "Mr. Garcia defended himself when attacked by an armed burglar."

In the February killing of Mr. Martin in the Orlando suburb of Sanford, a neighborhood-watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, said he acted in self-defense in shooting the teenager. Mr. Zimmerman hasn't been arrested or charged. His lawyer didn't respond to requests for comment.

The scope of "stand your ground" laws is being tested in several court cases across the country, including in Texas, where self-defense killings increased from an annual average of 26 before the law went into effect in 2007 to 46 after, according to the data.

Jose Manuel Morales was convicted of murder for shooting and killing Enil Lopez in a December 2007 gang fight in Dallas. According to Mr. Morales's lawyer, he was acting in defense of his brother, Juan Morales.

Mr. Morales's murder conviction, for which he was sentenced to 25 years in prison, is now in question because the trial judge incorrectly told the jury the brothers had a duty to retreat. A Texas appeals court is considering whether the error was severe enough to warrant a new trial.

Mr. Morales's lawyer, John Hagler, declined to comment specifically on the case. He did say the new law has given criminal-defense attorneys such as himself a new tool where few existed before. "If you've got two guys shooting it out, how many defenses are there?" he said. "I've had cases where my guy shot a guy in the back with an automatic rifle 11 times and claimed self-defense," Mr. Hagler said, noting that as the lawyer representing the accused, "you've got to do something."Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins, whose office is prosecuting Mr. Morales, said the Texas law was too susceptible to abuse. "If someone is trying to kick in your door, I don't think you should have a duty to retreat," said Mr. Watkins, who declined to comment on the Morales case. "But you can't pursue an individual and then claim self-defense."

I agree 100%. This having a veneer of scientific polling, our side needs to be aware of the data and the inferences which the forces of disarmament seek to imply using this data and how to best answer.

You may have heard of the bill passed recently by the Indiana General Assembly that gives citizens the right to physically resist--even with deadly force--any LEO they "reasonably believe" is unlawfully entering their dwelling or is about to cause them injury.

At this writing, the legislation awaits the signature of Gov. Mitch Daniels to become law. Daniels is expected to approve the measure this week.

When he does, "it will mean basically open season on police officers," predicts Tim Downs, president of the state FOP, which campaigned vigorously although unsuccessfully against the bill. "Law enforcement officers are definitely going to be put in harm's way."

In this report, we explore the background and implications of the new law, which understandably has sent shock waves through the Indiana law enforcement community and has cops in other states wondering if they're next.

HOT POTATO DECISION. The legislation was drafted in response to a controversial decision by the Indiana Supreme Court last May in a domestic disturbance case, Barnes v. State of Indiana.

Back in 2007, a distressed woman in southern Indiana had called 911 during a heated argument with her husband. When officers arrived, the man, "very agitated and yelling," belligerently informed them that they were "not needed." When they tried to enter the couple's apartment to check on the complainant's wellbeing, he blocked the doorway and shoved one officer against a wall. He was subjected to a neck restraint, Tasered, and then arrested on 4 counts, including battery on a police officer.

In appealing his subsequent conviction, the defendant argued that the officers' forcible entry was illegal and that he had a common-law right to "reasonably resist unlawful entry" by law enforcement into his home.

The state Supreme Court acknowledged that such a right, sometimes called the "castle defense doctrine," can be traced back to the Magna Carta of 1215. On 2 occasions, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized it: in Bad Elk v. United States [177 US 529 (1900)] and in United States v. Di Re [332 US 581 (1948)].

However, legislative and judicial thinking has changed significantly in recent years, the Indiana Supreme Court majority pointed out in its 3-2 decision. The Model Penal Code has now eliminated the right because "alternate remedies," including civil suit, now exist for an "aggrieved" party and because forceful resistance is "likely to result in greater injury." A "majority of states have abolished the right" to resist via statutes and judicial opinions, the Court stated.

"We believe...that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," the justices declared. "[W]e find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance."

According to the Indianapolis Bar Assn., "the same issue has been ruled upon similarly" by courts in an overwhelming majority of other states.

Click here to read the full decision.

RESPONSE TO "UPROAR." According to media reports, the Court's ruling ignited a "public uproar." Before long, legislators had drafted an act in the Indiana General Assembly [Senate Bill 0001] to rectify the situation by affirming the "robust self-defense rights" of the state's residents.

Earlier this month, the bill was approved 38-12 by the state Senate and 67-26 by the House. In its final form, it includes these key provisions to "ensure that a citizen feels secure...against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant"; e.g., an officer of the law:

• "A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:

(1) "protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;

(2) "prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or

(3) "prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect."

• A person is not justified in using force against the police if he or she:

(1) "is committing or escaping after the commission of a crime;

(2) "provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury;

(3) "has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor"...unless the officer "continues or threatens to continue unlawful action;

(4) "reasonably believes the public servant is...acting lawfully [or is] engaged in the lawful execution of [his] official duties."

However, the bill specifies that even deadly force can be justified in resisting the police if a citizen "reasonably believes" an officer is "acting unlawfully" and "the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person." In other words, Downs states, "There is no limit on the resistance that can be used."

Click here to read the legislation in full.

POLICE REACTION. The only organized voice that has spoken out against this legislation, says President Downs, is the Indiana state FOP. When the bill was passed despite the group's vehement objections, Downs requested an audience with Gov. Daniels to plead in person for a veto. Early this week, he spent 20 minutes with Daniels but was unable to persuade him to kill the bill. At this writing, the governor is believed to be just hours away from affixing his approval.

Downs has been an active LEO for more than 3 decades, currently serving as chief of police for the Lake County (IN) SD, and he has headed the state FOP since 1999. We asked what he thinks will be the outcome when Daniels signs the legislation into law.

Downs: It's only a matter of time before an officer or a civilian gets seriously hurt or killed because of this law. At the very least, it will result in more use of force. If a subject offers resistance he believes is justified, an officer isn't going to just meekly back off. He'll escalate force to overcome the resistance, one or both of them will likely be injured or worse, and a subject who survives will go to prison.

With this law successfully on the books in Indiana, I believe other states may look at it and be encouraged to adopt similar legislation.

Force Science News: Are there any subtleties in this law that make it less crazy than it seems?

Downs: No, it's insane. Backers of the bill kept saying it gives the police more protection, but there is no protection in it whatsoever. Criminals and other people who dislike the police are interpreting it that they can do anything they want against us now. I'm already getting hate mail from people saying, "Let's get it on. If I kill you, I'm justified in doing it." This is potentially lethal thinking. I've not found a police officer yet who has anything good to say about this statute.

FSN: As the legislation is written, much hinges on a subject's "reasonable belief" as to whether an officer is acting lawfully. Don't most suspects automatically believe officers are wrong in the actions taken against them, regardless of the circumstances?

Downs: Suspects always think we're in the wrong. The average citizen, even if they're well-intentioned, has no training in the law and police procedure on which to base a 'reasonable' decision. They're going to subjectively judge the circumstances to decide whether an officer is acting lawfully. And this subjective decision is going to be made at a time when emotions are likely to be highly charged, and drugs and/or alcohol will be involved a huge percentage of the time, affecting people's thinking.

Police officers are called upon every day to investigate domestic disturbances, child and elder abuse, and many other serious matters. Sometimes they don't have time to secure a warrant, yet they're duty bound to make entry onto private property and into private residences in order to protect the innocent. Empowering people to resist them is a recipe for disaster that will lead to senseless loss of life.

FSN: Is there any leeway given for officers who make legitimate mistakes and unwittingly force entry into an incorrect residence?

Downs: No. This is one of the many realities of police work that the politicians who voted for this don't understand.

FSN: And if it is determined later that the belief on which a subject acted was not reasonable and therefore the resistance was not justified, by then the damage from resisting is already done, right?

Downs: Right.

FSN: Who was the driving force behind this legislation?

Downs: Well, one group that sticks out and that surprised me was the National Rifle Assn. They give a lot of money and backing to politicians, and NRA people lobbied hard at the state capitol in favor of this bill. They thought the Supreme Court decision last year gave authorities too much power.

Also the press got a lot of people upset about not being able to defend themselves from unlawful intrusions when the decision came down. One legislator told me that a poll showed that 60% of the citizenry favored the bill. You'd have to prove that to me. I find it hard to believe. Many, many civilians I spoke to thought it was ridiculous. We had many legislators on our side, including one who's a former police chief, but the ones against us had the power.

FSN: What do you recommend for Indiana officers as this bill becomes law?

Downs: Stay on high alert during any response, especially to a residence. Even more than before, you don't know what you may be going into.

FSN: Are you planning to test the constitutionality of this law?

Downs: We'll definitely have our attorneys look into any possible way we can get it reversed. This law is not only dangerous, it's not needed. If an officer acts unlawfully, there are plenty of state and federal statutes to deal with it. That's a matter best handled by a judge and jury, not by a person standing on a doorstep thinking, 'I'm going to take care of this myself.' "

“You will recall the incident of the beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer. The beating sparked outrage in the community but there were very few that stepped up to do anything about it. I would presume the inaction was because of the fact that he was homeless not because he was black. Do you know the individual who stepped up when no one else in the black community would? Do you know who spent tireless hours putting flyers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church-goers to get out of church so that he could hand them flyers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8, 2011 at Sanford City Hall?? That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.” – from a letter to Turner Clayton of the Seminole County NAACP written by “a concerned Zimmerman family member”